[OT] Survey: Voluntary Taxation
Two questions:
a) Would you want to live in a society where taxation was voluntary?
b) If you did live in such a society would you voluntarily give up some of your income as tax?
a) Would you want to live in a society where taxation was voluntary?
b) If you did live in such a society would you voluntarily give up some of your income as tax?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
64 comments
Why don't all the celebrities who push for increased taxes give more voluntarily?
B) only if it coincides with my agenda.
B. I would voluntarily pay tax. However, I would certainly pay less than I do now. I like the services I receive but I don't like paying for them.
Sure, the US is already like that depending on income level.
> b) If you did live in such a society would you voluntarily give up some of your income as tax?
Possibly. If they were doing what the US federal government does now and spending tax money and writing laws for campaign donors, no. If the government were performing vital functions, yes. The problem with our current setup is all of the whatever-industrial complexes and regulatory capture where various industries get everything they want at everyone else's expense.
Should a very high income individual pay less than a failing corporation that's still turning a profit?
The question would be how to identify who gets the mandatory taxes and for what. If, e.g., two people in Canada are using an exchange based in the US, does the US get the taxes, or are the people making the transaction required to have their locations unmasked to pay local taxes? Are customs duties part of it in case a Canadian sells and American some dank weed?
I think it would be a better idea to keep taxes, duties, etc, at the payment processing level, rather than at the currency level. Ie., if I buy something with Bitcoin on overstock.com, they look up the shipping address and apply the appropriate taxes. If on the other hand, I'm sending with cancer a monetary gift help them survive, that wouldn't be taxable in the US if the gifts totaled under $10,000 for the year between the two of us.
Any mandatory taxation method seems like it would have to be either a per-transfer excise or require the equivalent of filling out a customs form for each transfer.
You're talking about corporate welfare, most of which is actually in the form of "tax expenditures," or carve-outs in the tax code. But if we switched to a flat tax, or a head tax, or a sales tax, and if we didn't exempt anything, wouldn't this problem just take care of itself? No one would ever be able to say, effectively, I pay less than everyone else because the government likes me more.
----------------
LOL!
Please stop bringing logic into the discussion.
If we privatized lots of the government functions, phased out welfare and transfer payments, balanced the budget, and switched to one of the taxation systems that I advocate, I don't even think we would need crypto currencies anymore. The dollar would be extremely stable.
But no. Why should a high income individual pay more? Corporation's are a necessary evil bc of their role in our place in the global economy, and bc they are needed for national security, but there's no reason for them to be propped up beyond that. Corporate welfare goes way beyond tax laws. It's become deeply systematic and works hand in hand w our social welfare system, and other system.
I don't want to pay taxes to support a system like that.
Sounds like the currency users would end up being liable for double taxation, where this would just be an additional tax in addition to what would otherwise be charged. Good luck getting anyone to use that. Everyone would still required to follow existing laws to pay certain amounts to various levels of government. In other words, just because there is a new currency designed to give some percent to some level of government somewhere doesn't mean that the extra percent the county has levied to pay for a new stadium will be forgiven.
B. I might donate a tiny amount to taxes if everyone else seemed to be but it wouldn't be anywhere near as much as what I've been paying.
If governments operated like that and only got a few percent at most of what people saved during a year, the government would have gone broke many years ago. Only the most generous would give 10% of everything they saved each year and the foolish in my opinion would be the only ones giving away 10% of everything pretax because they would likely run out of money they need after paying taxes, expenses, and saving for a rainy day.
I'm not going to argue with you about Monsanto or poisoning or the general role of corporations. Suffice it to say, I completely disagree with you on all of that. But this thread is about taxation. If we're not careful, we'll all be talking about Hitler again LOL. Anyway, the OP wants to know if a system of voluntary taxation would work and if we would pay. I gave him my opinion about a system that I think would work better. I didn't say it would solve all the world's problems. But I think it would help some things.
I was responding to Stognasty, who said that he believed the individual income tax was "a crime," but that corporations should should still have to pay taxes, presumably on their income. I asked him a hypothetical question so that he could clarify his position. I thought I made that clear.
Also, you said "It's become deeply systematic and works hand in hand w our social welfare system... ."
I think you mean 'systemic,' not 'systematic.' I learned the difference between the two words in public school.
The questions of taxation, and what you get for the taxes you pay are inextricably linked. To take your extreme example of a genocidal government, that would be something I would be opposed to funding. On the other hand, I don't have a problem paying a relatively small amount for roads to be built and allowing for eminent domain to build them.
> Suffice it to say, I completely disagree with you on all of that.
So, you think it's OK to for corporations to run the FDA resulting in farmers selling raw milk being guns-drawn raided? Or private prisons to bribe judges and pay off politicians for longer sentences and harsher drug laws, the effect of which is to just end up funding cartels and increase levels of violence?
From your earlier message, it had sounded like we were more in agreement that agencies such as the FDA should become less powerful to avoid having it do things like this. Less government power means less potential harm from regulatory capture.
Like, "it has become deeply systemic, and works systematically w our social welfare system."
Wrong I meant this was the only way the government would raise money. No idea why you would say it sounded like I meant it as double taxation. Just you looking for a strawman, I guess. Lol!
Anyway, it wasn't a strawman. It was examining an concept for how it could go wrong/potential unintended consequences.
1) "The questions of taxation, and what you get for the taxes you pay are inextricably linked."
Okay. Corporations get special favors, which is wrong. In response, some people want to tax them extra to make up for it. Why not just take away the special benefits that they receive in the first place? No need to punish people with higher taxes for things that they're getting that you disapprove of.
2) "I don't have a problem paying a relatively small amount for roads to be built and allowing for eminent domain to build them."
Neither do I.
3) "So, you think it's OK to for corporations to run the FDA..."
I don't think there should be such a thing as the FDA.
4) "... resulting in farmers selling raw milk being guns-drawn raided?"
I think you should be allowed to sell and drink raw milk. Personally, I would never drink it but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to. It's insane that the government responds that way.
5) "Or private prisons to bribe judges and pay off politicians..."
Private prisons are nothing compared to prison guard unions. The overwhelming majority of prisons are NOT private, and these public unions lobby constantly for more prisons and more prisoners. Plus, the over-incarceration problem has existed since long before there were private prisons. Personally, I believe private prisons are more humane, better run, cheaper, cleaner, etc. I'm sure there are lots of exceptions, but that's my view, for the simple reason that it's easier to sue a private company if they mistreat you. If I had to go to prison, I'd want to go to a private prison. It ain't paradise and it would still suck. But consider the alternative.
6) "... for longer sentences and harsher drug laws, the effect of which is to just end up funding cartels and increase levels of violence?"
I don't believe there should be such a thing as drug laws for adults. Let alone putting them in jail for using or selling drugs.
7) "From your earlier message, it had sounded like we were more in agreement that agencies such as the FDA should become less powerful to avoid having it do things like this. Less government power means less potential harm from regulatory capture."
Yeah, we agree on that. No one would lobby or look for special regulatory favors if the government had very little power.
Recently, I see politicians as just another middle man. In the same way that clearing houses can become obsolete by use of the Blockchain, I think politicians could become obsolete with the use of another Blockchain used for voting.... maybe.
--Ayn Rand
Makes perfect sense to me.
This sounds really good until the local private fire service sits by watching a stripper's house burn because it was the 9th bill on the list after new tattoos, nipple piercings, the car payment, phone service, etc and the fire spreads, engulfing surrounding houses. I guess the paying customers would get their money's worth on labor, but still...
People always seem to jump to Ayn Rand whenever they want to debate libertarianism, privatization, and related ideas. Mostly, this is because she was a kook. I think she was an interesting person and she actually did a lot of good in the world, but she was still a strange person. And she spoke only for herself. Those are her personal opinions. She's probably right, though, that IS what taxation would be like in a *fully* free society. But most people, myself included, don't actually want to have absolute 100% freedom. Being forced to pay for police, courts, an army, etc., doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. We should maximize freedom, yes, but that doesn't mean we ever get to a society with no government at all, or one with voluntary taxation. Having said that, there are actually many places in the USA that have privatized fire departments. They still put out the fires, even if you didn't pay your bill. They don't discriminate. If necessary, they just send you a bill afterwards. It's not really that crazy.
It is frustrating to see how our taxes are spent. We need security and infrastructure and many other programs, but with the government having such little oversight as to how the money is spent, and so much pork in bills....
Damn, I gotta stop now or I'll have to change my profile name to SJG or BookGuy.
I found Ayn Rand's writing to be interesting. I suspect that she was pushed farther to the extreme after living through the Bolshevik revolution and being subject to Soviet rule.
To Bj99's point, according to the numbers I have seen, groups who were supposed to be "helped" by the welfare state have actually been doing worse compared to when social welfare was handled through private charity.
Paul Zak gave a nice scientifically researched explanation on the biological basis for why this works on a voluntary basis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAdlU2E…
In a nutshell, it is because of empathy. For 95% of people, helping another person means sharing their joy, while watching another person suffer means sharing their suffering. The irony of statism is that it always seems to end up with the 5% who don't feel empathy being in control of "helping" everyone. The particularly unfortunate part is that social bonds are weakened, since by having the state as an intermediary, people are prevented from directly interacting with and helping one another and sharing bonds through oxytocin.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/06/let-it…
I guess it kind of figures. When I was in "compassionate" Canada and went to a hospital, they wanted four figures up-front in cash before they would see me and I ended up having to walk away. That was with insurance that had told me before the trip that they covered Canada. By contrast, every private care facility I have been in the US has provided care first and worked out payment later.
@ppwh: You experiences with private care in the US sound atypical. I can't remember ever not being asked for my insurance info before a visit. That would include a couple of ER visits.
> Wrong again, I made no mention of whether I saw everything else staying the same or other changes around it.
Right, that's why I stated plainly what my assumptions had been and let it go.
@Dougster said: "You experiences with private care in the US sound atypical. I can't remember ever not being asked for my insurance info before a visit. That would include a couple of ER visits."
I don't think he meant that they don't ask for insurance. What he meant is that they will treat you for free if they have to, instead of letting you die while filling out forms. That was the purpose of the EMTALA act in 1986. In other words, every private hospital in the US has to accept all comers, regardless of the ability to pay. And if there was any doubt about that, the Affordable Care Act reiterated it in 2010. But in practice, before EMTALA, there were many charity hospitals in every metro area. They used to see people regardless of their ability to pay. No government mandates required.
@Dougster said: "I've always found it funny how many Libertarians try to distance themselves from Ayn Rand, even though the beliefs are about 97.5% in common. The more honest ones just own up to the fact that they like her for the most part, but her philosophy needs a little tweak here and there."
Speaking only for myself, I like Ayn Rand. I agree with almost everything she said. I disagree with her on gays (she hated them for some reason), but other than that, we're sympatico. I'm not an objectivist, but I am a libertarian and an atheist, so I guess that means I'm most of the way there. Objectivists seem to believe that philosophy is all you ever need, whereas most libertarians would say that you also need history, political science, economics, common sense, etc. I'm not trying to distance myself from her. I'm just saying that not everything she said should be "pinned" on libertarianism. We shouldn't be forced to answer for everything she said. This philosophy existed long before Ayn Rand did.
I think she herself admitted that Libertarians and her came to the same conclusions on most issues, but she still hated them because they did not claim to do what she (wrongly) though she had done: derive it all from pure logic. Where, in her "mind", she succeeded where thousands of years of other philosophers failed. LOL! All very amusing.
Exactly. I think her books are good reading material from a psychological POV of view. The 5% who don't get empathy, plus whatever percentage of women fantasize about being raped and slicing and dicing themselves for their heroic men.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bm9w7…
Apparently 32%. That increases to 62% if you include things such as fantasizing about forced LDKs.
"Researchers found that 52 percent of the women had fantasies about forced sex with a man, 32 percent about being raped and 28 percent about forced oral sex with a man. Overall, 62 percent of the women reported having had at least one fantasy around a forced sex act."
Right, she hated us. She really believed that she was the first person in all of human history to ever systematize the philosophy of liberty, and that she had done so through pure logic, as you say. There is inconsistency because she gives a lot of credit to Aristotle, Jefferson, Aquinas, etc., but then she claims that she was a trailblazer and did it all herself. As I said before, she was a nutcase. But I still like her very much and I appreciate her work. After all, Gandhi, JFK, Mother Theresa, Ronald Reagan, Karl Marx, Charles Lindberg, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, George Bernard Shaw, Frida Kahlo, Cole Porter, Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, and even Jesus Christ, all said and did some very strange things throughout their lives. Sometimes they said contradictory things. And yet the people who love them, they REALLY love them. And no one is ever asked to answer for anything off-kilter that these people ever said. But somehow libertarians have to answer for everything that's ever been said or written by Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, etc.
I also think she gets more attention since she, Friedman, Hayek do influence a move more toward "pure capitalism" which critics see not exactly ending up the way its advocates claim it would. In her case, it's particularly bad, b/c she explicitly she says although she imagines the poor and weak would be taken care of through voluntary charity in a pure capitalist system, even if they weren't it's not a strike against her philosophy. Friedman and Hayek were a bit kinder and gentler, or at least knew better than to say such a thing.
(My own belief is that a pure capitalist world would indeed be nothing like it's advocates imagine it would. I think it would quickly degenerate into feudalism (maybe two or three generations) with wealth far more concentrated then it even is now. The fundamental problem is that once you gain some wealth it's easier to gain more, so it becomes unstable. And once you lead relative to other gets big enough it's easier to kill them off than leave them as competitors via various anti-competitive practices.
I think most pure capitalist advocates see themselves as rather better than most of the rest of humanity, and think in a pure capitalist world they would be close to the top. But I think the reality it is everything would probably fall under the control one family and we would effectively be back to the middle ages. (Although to give some rare credit to SJG he says that in the middle ages the nobility had more obligations to peasants than the richest would under pure capitalism).)
Well, let's remember that capitalism didn't exist in the middle ages. There have always been businessmen, but the organized system of capitalism didn't begin until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. Feudalism and mercantilism are the systems that preceded it. Capitalism requires certain preconditions in order to take root. It requires stable government, respect for property rights, a court system to handle disputes, due process, etc. We've lacked these things for most of human history. You can trace a direct line from the Magna Carta to the founding documents of the United States, to the beginnings of real capitalism. Under feudalism and the so-called Ancien Regime, if you had a business, or owned property, it could be taken away at the whim of a king or local strongman. Capitalism can't really exist under those conditions, because no one would ever make big risky investments under those conditions without official royal backing. Feudalism also depends on war. The descendants of the best fighters/warriors eventually became kings, queens, and nobles. And the smartest people who couldn't fight joined the church. Everyone else got what they got... which was virtually nothing. That's not capitalism. And look at the results: even poor people today live better than kings did a thousand years ago, at the peak of feudalism.
As for Ayn Rand, you're basically right. And she purposely made herself a target by saying outrageous things. Like when she was talking about self-interest. Whet she meant was: "Don't be self-sacrificing." But she purposely said "Be selfish," instead. It sounds more outrageous that way. By contrast, Friedman and Hayek would always come across as more mild-mannered. It's kind of like the difference between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. People would always assume that Cruz was a conservative nutjob, and that Rubio was a "sensible moderate," but really Rubio was just saying conservative things in a moderate tone of voice, while Cruz actually had some moderate positions, but he said them while frothing at the mouth LOL.
Lets set a Flat tax for the feds at 20% on your income and state at 5-10% of your income. Get rid of all the confusing and special interest deductions and the unearned income credits. Raise the dependent deduction to a reasonable place like $12,500.00 each, that way a family of 4 can earn up to $50,000.00 and not pay income taxes and if you insist keep the PRIMARY home mortgage deduction. Stop the thieves like Bill and Hillary, Bill Gates, and dozens of others from hiding their income in not for profit "foundations that do nothing but hide money, pay big expense accounts and salaries to certain people (Chelsea).
Force the government to discharge every other person that works for it since there are usually 3 people doing the job that would take one in private industry son not decrease in services would be noticed.
eliminate government pensions before ANYONE turns 65 (except law enforcement and military) I am tired of congress getting a full pay pension for their "service" no matter how short. That includes the president.
Congress also should have to abide by any law it passes: Health care, OSHA, Sexual discrimination, insider trading, and minimum wage to but a few laws congress have exempted it self from to enslave us and enrich themselves.
This would do many things that would benefit the average taxpayer greatly. The government wastes more than it takes in.
A flat rate will never happen because all the lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats that make billions leaching off the misery of the taxpayer will not allow it not to mention the politicians who hide behind it and us it every election claiming they will reform.
A constitutional amendment needs to happen:
1}Fix the tax rate at not more than 30% including all taxes, income, sales, vat, excise, property and all others. Failure to balance the budget means no pay for any government official and elected officials must return with interest their pay and expense accounts.
2} The government must balance the budget to income versus expenditures.(only able to consume up to 30% of the GNP including ALL government programs and unfunded mandates)
3} Absolute Term Limits: 5 terms/10 years in the House and 3 terms/18years as a Senator- A 401 K plan will be made available for all government officials to pay into just like the rest of us - no guaranteed pensions. No payout until 65 just like the rest of us!
4} Social Security is to stand on its own and taking funds from Social Security for other government program as has been done in the past is now illegal punishable by prison for embezzlement.
In the United States, the day when you pay your taxes is a day of mourning because this alien force - the government - is coming to rob you of your hard-earned money. That's the general attitude, and it's a tremendous victory for the opponents of democracy, and, of course, any privileged sector is going to hate democracy. You can see it in the healthcare debate.
To answer your question; in a real democracy yes, otherwise no.